Rating: 
Summary: Not Bad but fairly predictable
Review: Ben affleck and Uma Thurman star is John Woo's latest offering. Mr. Affleck has had his memory erased, but knowing this was likely to happen left himself 13 clues to help him reclaim his life, get the girl, kill all the baddies and ride fast on a motorcycle. Plenty of two gun unlimited magazine style action, and actually looks quite good, despite Mr. Woo's penchant for "SfX Overload" and "lets use more ammo than the A team" style of direction. A little better than most mindless action movies, one or two twists, but even the most indifferent viewer should have figured it all out way before the end.
Rating: 
Summary: Worst John Woo Film By FAR
Review: I must confess I love John Woo films. I love the imagery,emotions,and style that he brings to the action genre. However, this is by far the worst John Woo movie I have seen. I can only think of one redeming part--a shot of Affleck falling to his soppused death--is classic Woo (complete with the cross and dove). However, the film is very restrained in the action. This being a PG-13 vechicle, it does not give Woo the room to make the action he is most noted for. One sad examble is Affleck doesn't use a gun all that much in the film (so no two fisted gun blazing christ like hero in this one). The dramatic care chase was boring--I think it was because I knew they were not in Seattle and so I was put off on the reference to streets in Seattle.I generally, enjoy films by John Woo (granted his American Films are not as great as his Hong Kong Films), I usually know to expect great action--well, unfortuantely it's not in this film. If you want to see a Great Woo Film rent "The Killer" or "Hard Boiled", leave Paycheck on the shelves.
Rating:
Summary: A cool if somewhat recycled premise
Review: Paycheck has a cool if somewhat recycled premise: our protagonist (in this case, an engineer played by square-jawed Beniffer - I mean Ben Affleck) works on reverse-engineering projects and then has his memory wiped so that there's no evidence left behind. But then comes along the job of his life - a multimillion dollar deal that has one catch...he must lose three years of his memory. So Michael Jennings (Affleck), who is a greedy bastard, takes the deal. A lot can happen in three years and of course, he manages to fall in love with the doctor (Uma Thurman) who he had a brief flirtation with at a party. He also worked on a top-secret project (it's spoiler time folks, so get ready)... [...] Jennings of course wants no part of the project so he has to send himself secret coded notes in the form of 20 generic, boring everyday items. Then he gives up all that money to "keep him focused on those 20 items." The movie's plot is intriguing. The initial science of memory wiping seems plausible. Jennings brain must be kept at a certain temperature or he "turns into a vegetable" during a process where they literally zap brain cells away. You lose brain cells every day, so this isn't quite as awful as it sounds. Of course, one of the problems is that the guy who does the zapping sees on screen what Jennings saw. So should HE have to be zapped too? Shouldn't it be an automated process run by a machine or something? There are a lot of plot holes like that, and once you go down that path the movie turns into a big, breezy pile of Swiss cheese. As I work for a Fortune 5 company myself, I know for a fact that if a highflying executive sold all his stock or gave up his shares, he'd be immediately called into an office to ask why. People don't just give up millions of dollars because they're having a bad day. The second memory wipe is also plausible - they insert a tracer into Jennings and then, when the three years are up, follow back to the point of the tracer and chemically wipe his brain. Since it's a chemical process, it's an imperfect one and Jennings has dreams and nightmares of what he saw. [...] John Woo has an issue with pacing. It's obvious he wants to show off his martial arts filming techniques and there are plenty of opportunities for Jennings to do just that. But they drag on too long. Jennings is also a fantastic motorcyclist - bizarre, since Rachel (Thurman) tells him he's "only okay" on the bike. Then we're subjected to a 10-minute-too-long action sequence of Jennings and Rachel being chased by cop cars, bad guys, and multiple car explosions. This happens again and again. The protagonists get into a tight spot and some of the time, Jennings McGyvers his way out. The rest of the time, he fights his way out. The engineer. Fighting his way out like a Marine. There's no chemistry between Thurman and Affleck. I'm not sure how there could be. I'm so accustomed to seeing Uma in movies where she's a tough, pushy, almost manly character that seeing her in pink and giggling seemed extremely out of character. Affleck does a fair job of trying to be bewildered and compassionate at the same time, but nowhere is there any evidence of the incredible brilliance that Jennings used to create the device or negotiate his way through the future. To sum up, Paycheck has all the twists of Total Recall but drags on its action sequences too long; it has all the mystery of Minority Report but not enough technical savvy to convince us it's a possible future; all the mind-bending antics of Memento but not enough carefully crated design to be a brilliant script, all the apocalyptic predictions of Terminator 3 but not the strength of its convictions to end the movie on a low note.
Rating:
Summary: No Pay Off
Review: Philip K. Dick was one of America's finest science fiction writers, not so much for his characterisation or actual writing but more for the quality of ideas. Those ideas have been translated into several interesting movies including "Blade Runner", "Total Recall". "Minority Report", and the less well known "Impostor", and "Screamers". Now it's the turn of former Hong Kong director John Woo to take on Philip K Dick in the movie "Paycheck". For uncritical John Woo fans it may have something to offer. For fans of science-fiction it's a much less rewarding enterprise. Engineering wizard Michael Jennings (played by Ben Affleck) has voluntarily agreed to have his memory wiped. He's employed by big corporations to reverse engineer the inventions of others, so that they can market the product for themselves. To escape detection they clean his memory of all knowledge of what he has done. Usually Jennings gives up a couple of months of his memories at a time, but on this occasion he takes on a three year job from an old friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhardt). WE can see Rethrick is a bad guy in about 30 seconds, but despite having known him since they were kids, Jennings has never managed to figure this out. Maybe his brain works only on computers. Jennings is told that that job will earn him an eight figure sum in terms of stock options, and he'll never have to work again. It seems too good to be true, and it is. When he returns to the world after having had his memory wiped, he discovers that he has earned nothing at all. He's forfeited his stock options and left himself an envelope of personal possessions filled with items he doesn't recognize. He has to figure out what these items mean, or what they are for, if he wants to unravel the mystery. Not long after discovering that he has no money, Jennings is apprehended by the FBI who use their own methods to try to retrieve whatever's in his mind. He manages to escape form them using the objects he has in his envelope, and it becomes apparent - through one message he sent to himself in the envelope - that he somehow has knowledge of the future, and that if he uses these objects at the right time and in the right way he will survive it. Plot hole number one. If the future is unchangeable anyway, then it doesn't really matter what he does with the objects he has had sent to himself. And if it's changeable then much of the central concept of the film, which I won't give away too much, is complete nonsense. Of course one problem with this idea is that if the central character knows what's going to happen anyway and knows how to get out of it where's the suspense for the movie audience? Well the best thing the film-makers can come up with is one recurring image he keeps having of a bullet flying right at him that he doesn't know how to get away from. That's the only suspense we have up until the scene actually occurs. What is reality? What does it mean to be human? These are questions that fascinated Philip K. Dick. But neither John Woo nor screenwriter Dean Georgaris are really up to the task of dealing with these intellectual concerns. Instead they change it into a chase thriller, with a little cursory romance thrown in, in which the character has most of the tools needed for his survival in his hands. The cursory romance is provided by Uma Thurman as biologist Dr. Rachel Porter (Uma Thurman), who for some reason manages to research for the same company without having her memory wiped. After taking on the central role in "Kill Bill" it's must be a thankless task to be cast as the generic girlfriend in a John Woo movie. Romance isn't a big thing in Woo's universe, and is usually handled by having the man and woman look at each other in slow motion while the camera moves. Other elements are pinched from other movies based on Dick's stories. Two scenes are stolen from "Minority Report" alone, one in which he is reverse-engineering someone else's invention, the other of which takes place in a shopping mall, and uses a balloon in the right place at the right time. Not much here is not predictable. Including the fact that even though Affleck is playing the ultimate nerd, he also knows martial arts, and how to do hair riaising motor-bike stunts. You can only find yourself groaning when you see Affleck using an old kung fu movie routine to show that his memory wipe hasn't damaged his co-ordination. "Face/Off" showed that John Woo could work well with a science fiction concept IF that sci-fi concept didn't require too much analysis or thought and if it dovetailed with his longstanding movie concerns. "Paycheck" is Woo on autopilot, and Philip K Dick's original idea is wasted. And someone should tell the director that repeating the same shot of a dove flying in slow motion in every darned film you make is NOT a sign of directorial style. I like birds, but I wish someone would roast this one. Spend your money on "Paycheck" and you might be willing to pay to have your memory wiped of that decision.
Rating: 
Summary: Twists and Turns Without A Lot Of Junk
Review: While this movie does have some glaring plot flaws that you have to overlook, it is a good piece of relatively clean entertainment, if you don't look too deeply into the premise. I liked the twists and turns in the plot and the fact that the ending is not assured in advance.
Rating:
Summary: Stinks On Ice
Review: I was a captive audience. Our boy scout troup was visiting a Navy base and we got to see this turkey for free. Those who chose (wisely, I might add!)not to see it, went bowling instead. So the transportation vehicles were over at the bowling alley. Anyone who compares Ben with Cary Grant doesn't have a clue about talent, style, stage presence and sex appeal. Ben has zilch. I also don't know whats up with Uma; she's bland, not pretty and was only good in The Truth About Cats and Dogs. She's a dog! The scene where she jumps off a moving motorcycle while be shot at, to go back and pick up the envelope she dropped was so ridiculous. A five year old could have shot and killed her on the spot. There were so many holes in this plot, they should have name it "Swiss Cheese"! B-O-R-I-N-G. If the audiences applauded at the end of the movie, its because they were glad it was finally OVER!!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: PAYCHECK
Review: I was very dissapointed with this movie for one reason the principal actors and director are not suited to this type of film.
Despite Ben Affleck's goofy reputation, he is a good actor; given the right type of role. As an action hero he is a total no-no, he just seems bemused for nearly two hours. He should stick with films like Dogma or Chasing Amy; where he can show his cynical side. As for Uma Thurman (outstanding in Kill Bill) she is just plain annoying as a spunky side kick. The real dissapointment is John Woo, making a light-weight action movie of MCG Proportions. Fair enough he certainly can't make another 'Hard Boiled' for the American market but he still made 'Face Off' and 'Windtalkers'. A diet coke action movie through and through!
Rating:
Summary: Read the Original Story!
Review: In 2003, Paycheck was made into a adventure-thriller starting Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman. In the movie version, Jennings has done the mind-erase engineering jobs several times and we meet him BEFORE he goes into his long, 2 year project with Rethrick. He meets Rachel, a biologist, shortly before starting his work. When he gets out, he gets an envelope of trinkets from a bank lady. He's furious at not getting his $90 million dollars even though it was himself (pre-amnesia) who agreed to the change. He uses a few trinkets to get out of jams before he realizes that he must have given himself those trinkets, and therefore he was able to see the future at the time. He uses the trinkets one by one to help him escape both the cops, who want to know what he did for Rethrick, and Rethrick's goonies, who now wants him dead. It turns out that during the 2 years, Jennings has fallen in love with Rachel and the two meet up together at a restaurant based on Jenning's trinkets. Rachel of course agrees to help him out. Jennings decides he has to get back to the laboratory and see what he was working on. Meanwhile, Rethrick realizes Jennings has fouled up the time viewer and plans on letting Jennings succeed so Jennings will fix the viewer, then catch him again. Jennings does indeed fix the viewer using a pretty lame clue and looks into the future. He realizes that knowledge of the future will doom mankind to wars and destruction because it will destroy free will. He therefore plans on destroying the machine. As this was directed by John Woo, there is a fantastic ending battle and the machine is destroyed, and in the end it turns out that Jennings used his future-vision to help them win the lottery, so now Jennings and Rachel are millionaires. My Notes -
Good God Almighty. Yes, I thought the original story had some flaws because the main character was selfish and greedy. So what the movie did was keep the character flaws and completely destroy the plotline as well. First, some critics picked on Affleck and Thurman as being non-spectacular. Well, yes! This isn't Minority Report, where the hero is a seasoned cop, nor is it Blade Runner, where the hero is ... a seasoned cop. The hero here is an ENGINEER, an average guy trying to think his way out of a complex situation. I thought Affleck did a great job of doing that. He's not a Government Agent. He's a computer nerd. Uma is equally not a Charlie's Angel, she's a biologist who loves an engineer. They both show the intelligence and loyalty that are integral to their characters. But back to the plot. In the original story, Rethrick was a 'good' company who dealt with Jennings honorably, having him build something critical to them preserving knowledge until government stability came around again. But in the movie, Rethrick is an evil company out to cause harm. In the book, Jennings is just avoiding the police until he can blackmail Rethrick and become "safe" as part of the company. In the movie, Jennings is fighting on all fronts AND has a loyal love interest by his side. And instead of blackmailing the company and forcing a woman to be his wife, he destroys a company and manipulates the state lottery to give him millions of dollars. Neither one seems very inspiring to me. But even worse, we are back to the same free will screw-up that happened with Minority Report. In BOTH Minority Report and Paycheck, Philip K Dick said clearly in his stories that the future is set, that there is a way to see what is in the future and that this knowledge is a GOOD thing. In both stories, the ending is that the future-vision remains in place. But Hollywood seems to have huge issues with this concept. In both movie versions, it is somehow FREE WILL that triumphs. The future-viewing is seen as a HUGE threat and is destroyed quite forcefully. You almost have to wonder if there is some sort of agenda going on in Hollywood, that they fear the loss of free will and are therefore completely altering any storyline that speaks out against it. In the story version, the ending has Rethrick surviving as a storehouse of knowledge to safeguard the future, sort of like the Irish monks keeping safe the tomes of knowledge during the dark ages. But in the movie version, Jennings gleefully destroys Rethrick because "knowledge is dangerous" and then uses his power to rig the lottery! And this is supposed to be a good thing?? I really have to wonder just why both of these stories (Minority Report and Paycheck) were altered 180 degrees from the original intent, in the exact same fashion, only a year apart. I can only hope that the movies have inspired people to go back and read the original stories, and then put some thought into the differences and what they mean.
Rating:
Summary: disappointing
Review: A film by John Woo Once upon a time a film directed by John Woo meant something. He was a well known and well respected director from Hong Kong. His first couple of pictures in America, while not spectacular, were fairly good: "Broken Arrow" and "Face/Off". Unfortunately, since "Face/Off" he has been moderately disappointing. "Paycheck" is not a step in the right direction. After the success of "Minority Report" it seemed that stories by Philip K. Dick are back in demand (he also wrote the story that was the basis of "Blade Runner"). "Paycheck" is the story of Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), a reverse engineer. A reverse engineer works for a company and takes an existing product (typically that of a competitor), takes it apart to see how it was built, and then puts it back together while improving it so that the new company can profit from someone else's original design. After this work is done, the memory of the reverse engineer is erased so that he does not know what project he worked on, only that he got paid. Michael Jennings is an engineer in demand. He takes on a large project from his friend James Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart). This job can take up to three years, which is a large period of his life to be erased from his memory, but Rethrick assured Michael that the payoff, the paycheck will be worth it. Michael accepts the job and follows through with it, it is suggested, in part because he meets a woman named Rachel Porter (Uma Thurman). In the blink of an eye, three years pass. Michael has no idea what just happened because his memory was just wiped. Rethrick tells him that he is done with the project. Michael goes home, checks his account balance and sees that he is now 93 million dollars richer, but when he returns to collect his possessions, the items in the envelope are not his own and his money is gone. He is told that he forfeited his shares of stock and mailed himself the envelope. Now United States government is after him for a case of potential treason and Michael Jennings has no idea what he did for the past three years. This is an interesting enough concept and I would be interested to read Philip K Dick's story. John Woo just did not get the job done. It turns out to be a fairly typical action movie, and not at all as clever as I had expected (or as the film itself suggests it could be with the envelope full of strange items). "Paycheck" is bland and dull, and at times it is also silly. When I think about how good Uma Thurman has been in other movies, it is really disappointing, because she is forced to deliver really bad lines and she doesn't make them sound any better. Some scenes, like a big explosion late in the movie, just go on too long and try to do too much, and by the end, I was just glad it was over. This isn't worth recommending and it really isn't worth renting. Just skip this one.
Rating:
Summary: Bounced Paycheck
Review: When I first saw previews for this movies, I was very excited. I knew that it had been adapted from a Phillip K. Dick short story, the guy who wrote the inspiration for Minority Report, which I loved. The previews made this movie look like it had it all; a good plot, cool stunts, and great effects. Well, more or less, it did have all of those. The thing that it lacked was acting talent.
To say that this movie disappointed me would be an understatement. As I said, the story, effects, and stunts were all up to par, but I could not concentrate on them due to Ben Affleck's HORRIBLE performance. The other actors were bad, but nowhere near Affleck. Also, it seemed that whenever Affleck was on-screen, he brought down the performances of his costars.
Anyway, here's the story. A few decades in the future, Affleck plays Michael Jennings,a reverse engineer; he takes apart existing products to find out how they work, then builds newer and better models for rival companies. When he is finished with his jobs, his old bosses erase his memory so that he won't tell the company's secrets. Soon, Jennings is approached by his old friend Jimmy Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart) with a proposal for a job that will make them both very rich men. The catch is that it will require three years of his life to complete. Jennings agrees, but when three years are up and his mind is erased, Jennings learns that he forfeited his paycheck, and instead receives an envelope containing nineteen strange items that don't seem to have any connection to each other, which makes sense because they have nothing to do with each other. They each serve a purpose in helping Jennings find the truth about what he did for three years. Along the way, he rekindles a romance with Rachel Porter (Uma Thurman), who he met during his tenure with Rethrick's company.
This is a John Woo film, so we are guaranteed good action sequences. We got his trademark motorcycle chase, and the ending shootout was good, but after a while, I started wondering how an engineer became such a Superman. Well, I guess that there could have been worse problems with the story.
I have read that Matt Damon was originally considered for the Jennings role, but he didn't take it because it was too similar to The Bourne Identity. Why didn't he take this role? He is such a better actor than Affleck, and he could have possibly saved this movie. But alas, we are stuck with this Affleck-induced bomb. Too bad.
| 
